S & P 44
- Thread starter shmitty
- Start date
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
BuShips said:emperorpenguin said:BuShips said:
They forgot Slovak
You can change that, you know. :wink:
D'oh
of course!Poko said:and if you want to talk about bad names, you just can't forget about Osram company(lightbulbs producer) and polish language :lol:
go on tell.....................
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
BuShips said:
yep and had Britain and France decided to defend Czechoslovakia the chances are they would have done far better than waiting for the Poland crisis. All those tanks plus natural mountain barriers.....
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
cordas said:
that is true but the Czechs themselves could put up a better fight than the Poles did
There was no problem with defending Czechoslovakia or helping Poland - all the French and Brits had to do was to invade Germany - after all they had this long, nice land border with some pretty fortifications which could serve as a safe line for launching attacks... With most of the first line German divisions engaged in the invasion they would face only the screening reserve units and would be in Berlin in no time...
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
Typical liberal response, kiss the arse of your enemy, while selling out your allies. (appeasement never works in the long run). Every country on the face of the Planet including the USA have fallen into that old trap. Like the USA selling out thier allies in South East Asia.
Helping Czechoslovakia or Poland in any way other than providing "moral support" would start a war with Germany - a local (although big) conflict in Europe. Not helping started WWII. Brits and French had a lot of opportunities to stop the whole thing before it even started - but they had shown weakness and lack of resolve each and every time.
OTOH maybe it is good, that they were such pussies... WWII would have started anyway, only a little bit later - when Stalin finally decided that he's ready to bring Communism to the nations of Europe (probably just after demobilization in western europe). The balance of power would be different, we probably wouldn't be able to stop the commies this time -quite probably you'd all learn to speak russian and praise Marks.
OTOH maybe it is good, that they were such pussies... WWII would have started anyway, only a little bit later - when Stalin finally decided that he's ready to bring Communism to the nations of Europe (probably just after demobilization in western europe). The balance of power would be different, we probably wouldn't be able to stop the commies this time -quite probably you'd all learn to speak russian and praise Marks.
Pietia said:
Maybe you could be more offensive next time, but I don't see how.
Europe was less than 20 years on from the most devastating war that anybody had seen. Killing on the fields of Flanders, The Somme, Passchendale, Verdun, Bellau wood, Arras, Cambrai and other had been raised to an almost industruial level. The male populations of entire towns had been devastated, leading the British army to change the way it allocated recruits to units from then on. Most of Europe was sick of war and hoped that the great war was the war to end all wars. It was this horror from the last war, and the desire to never see it happen again, which led to the appeasment plans of the 30's.
The treaty of Versailles had been extreamly punitive on German, overly so many historians now feel, and led to the german post war depression and the ripe ground for a strong, charismatic leader like Hitler to rise to power. Had Versailles been less punitive, the Second World War might never have taken place.
Churchill had been warning about the dangers of "Little Herr Hitler" since the early 30's. He had been hounded out of the cabinet and banised to "the wilderness" as he called it and was, for some time, the sole voice of dissent aginst Chamberlain's appeasement movement. Upon the announcment of war he was broughnt back into the cabinet as 1st Sea Lord and was then asked by the King to form an all party government upon Chamberlains resignation.
G.
You don't need to teach me history. As for being offensive - how to call two countries calling themselves powerful empires, which refuse to carry out their military obligations coming from treaties they signed out of their own free will just a few days before the start of the war? How to call two countries which did nothing to enforce the rules they themselves have imposed upon Germany? Who did nothing to stop Hitler from building up his army to strength forbidden by the treaty? Who did nothing when troops entered demilitarized Rheinland? So many chances to stop the Nazis with minimum of bloodshed...
Don't worry - it would have. It would be a different war, it would start probably a year or two later, but it would have.
Pietia said:
Well... like that, actually. Much more eloquent, less emotive and descriptive without being insulting.
As far as treaties are concerned, Britain signed a mutual defence pact with Poland the day before she was due to be invaded, in an attempt to dissuade the Germans from invading. Far from failing to honour our treaty obligations, the UK put it's neck out to try and prevent the war - signing a defnce pact with a country we KNEW was about to be invaded. We declared war on Germany prompltly after the invasion and had been instrumental in the attempts to negotiate peace beforehand.
Wouldn't really be Ccricket to declare war on a chap before he breaks the treaty now, would it? Upon the declaration of war the BEF sailed for France and also invaded parts of then-neutral Norway to try and deny them from the Germans (where we got thumped). The BEF then got a kicking in France and was pushed back over the channel. This indirectly, along with the Norway campaign, led to the fall of Chamberlains government.
As far as the Rheinland is concerned, it was widely regarded as being of little consequence at the time. Stanley Baldwin, the British prime minister described it as "Germany marching into it's own back yard" and George Bernard Shaw compared it to England re-occupying Plymouth. France and Britain were simply not prepared for war at that stage, either psychologically on the French part, or in terms of men and materiel on the British part. I also seem to recall that Poland abstained on a vote in the league of nations asking if the German re-militarisation was a breach of treaty...
Hitler later went on to say that if France had marched in to repulse the token German forces, he would have been lost and would probably never have recovered politically.
G.
By "being instrumental" you understand putting a lot of pressure on Polish government to prevent it from mobilizing troops? In order "not to upset Mister Hitler"...GJD said:
Unfortunately after the attempt to prevent Germany from invading failed, UK and France declared war on Germans and... did nothing. Just sending BEF to France was not much.
Well, Hitler broke the treaty for the first time in 1935...GJD said:
Norway invasion was half a year later, late enough for a Polish brigade to take part in the invasion...GJD said:
If that wouldn't lead to its fall, I'd say that somebody somewhere was suicidally stupid (although that might have been seen as offensive)... When Stalin had a knife on his throat, he dug out many military commanders from gulags, as they were the only ones that could save his neck. In exactly the same way Brits decided to let their only politician with some courage in him to do his job - when an invasion on their country seemed imminent and no sooner...GJD said:
Just after the Germans broke the treaty for the first time (by starting to rebuild their armed forces way above the treaty levels) AND again after the Germans re-militarised Rheinland the Polish government issued a proposal to the French and British government to take together an immediate action in order to "remind" the Germans. As for the vote in LoN - I don't have access to materials about that vote, but if we asked Brits and French to take action together, I don't see any reason why should Poland abstain (other than "and you'll do what?" approach)GJD said:
Fortunately for him, unfortunately for the rest of the world Hitler has proven time and time again to be a good judge of character and easily recognized cowards...
Hmmm and the lessons from history are never learnt.
What happened in the 1930s as has already been pointed out started with what happened at the end of the 1st world war with the Treaty of Versailles. If that treaty had not been so punative against Germany then its probable WW2 would never have happened, the newly elected German democracy would not have pretty much imediatly collapsed as it could not control the economy....
Everything that happened after that was just falling dominos, the powers that where in Europe at the time tried to stop the situation escalating, and with hindsight we KNOW THEY FAILED. Its also fairly easy with hindsight to say what could / should have been done differently; as they say hindsight is 20:20. However its impossible to know what effect those changes would have had, if various people and goverments had acted differently things could have gone far better, they could also have gone far worse.
If you go and study the history books, you will find 10s of tiny insignificant things that could have completely changed history, and those are just the known about occasions in reality there would have been hundreds of thousands of events that could have stopped the war or made it far worse.....
What happened in the 1930s as has already been pointed out started with what happened at the end of the 1st world war with the Treaty of Versailles. If that treaty had not been so punative against Germany then its probable WW2 would never have happened, the newly elected German democracy would not have pretty much imediatly collapsed as it could not control the economy....
Everything that happened after that was just falling dominos, the powers that where in Europe at the time tried to stop the situation escalating, and with hindsight we KNOW THEY FAILED. Its also fairly easy with hindsight to say what could / should have been done differently; as they say hindsight is 20:20. However its impossible to know what effect those changes would have had, if various people and goverments had acted differently things could have gone far better, they could also have gone far worse.
If you go and study the history books, you will find 10s of tiny insignificant things that could have completely changed history, and those are just the known about occasions in reality there would have been hundreds of thousands of events that could have stopped the war or made it far worse.....
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Pietia said:
but you have to look at it from the mindset of the time, not using hindsight.
France had lost an entire generation in WW1 and had spent millions (billions?) on the Maginot line. They always planned to fight a defensive war.
Take a look at it not using hindsight, just facts obvious at that time:
-Germany breaks the treaty by starting a re-armament process and greatly expanding the armed forces
-Germany sends a large contingent to Spain to research new tactics and proper application of modern weapons
-Germany incorporates Austria and invades Czechoslovakia (claiming that the Czechoslovakia will satisfy its hunger for conquest)
-Just after the invasion on Czechoslovakia (in which, sadly, Poland had its - small but always existing - part) Germany starts looking hungrily at another country...
-Germans see France and GB as weaklings, since they allow them to do everything they want without protest
-weak countries are a likely prey for Germany
Now connect the dots (a task too difficult for many politicians)
Perhaps the western politicians should be paying more attention to Hitler's speeches. Unlike many other politicians he was doing exactly what he said he will do (a cunning deception tactic in the world of politics ;-) )...
-Germany breaks the treaty by starting a re-armament process and greatly expanding the armed forces
-Germany sends a large contingent to Spain to research new tactics and proper application of modern weapons
-Germany incorporates Austria and invades Czechoslovakia (claiming that the Czechoslovakia will satisfy its hunger for conquest)
-Just after the invasion on Czechoslovakia (in which, sadly, Poland had its - small but always existing - part) Germany starts looking hungrily at another country...
-Germans see France and GB as weaklings, since they allow them to do everything they want without protest
-weak countries are a likely prey for Germany
Now connect the dots (a task too difficult for many politicians)
Perhaps the western politicians should be paying more attention to Hitler's speeches. Unlike many other politicians he was doing exactly what he said he will do (a cunning deception tactic in the world of politics ;-) )...
I've been watching this post with interest.
I think two very valid points have been raised:
Firstly, neither France nor the UK anticipated that Germany would actually follow up its threats although it had shown that it would do so.
Secondly, both Britain and France had suffered greatly during WW1, so greatly in fact that the they were afraid of a war because of what happened last time. They probably assumed that Germany felt the same way. In addition to this, because of the fear of a costly war, they sought to avoid another war at all costs and quiet frankly, they wouldn't have cared too much about countries on the other side of Germany 1. Because they weren't Britain and France, 2. Because they couldn't actually get there. 3. Because it was probably assumed that Russia was there to keep the Germans in check. From my recollection it came as a complete surprise that on the same day Russia invaded Poland as well and France and the UK hadn't anticipated that. It should also be remembered that the Fascists were fundamentally opposites to the communists and France and Britain would probably have hoped that they would bleed each other to death.
Just a thought.
I think two very valid points have been raised:
Firstly, neither France nor the UK anticipated that Germany would actually follow up its threats although it had shown that it would do so.
Secondly, both Britain and France had suffered greatly during WW1, so greatly in fact that the they were afraid of a war because of what happened last time. They probably assumed that Germany felt the same way. In addition to this, because of the fear of a costly war, they sought to avoid another war at all costs and quiet frankly, they wouldn't have cared too much about countries on the other side of Germany 1. Because they weren't Britain and France, 2. Because they couldn't actually get there. 3. Because it was probably assumed that Russia was there to keep the Germans in check. From my recollection it came as a complete surprise that on the same day Russia invaded Poland as well and France and the UK hadn't anticipated that. It should also be remembered that the Fascists were fundamentally opposites to the communists and France and Britain would probably have hoped that they would bleed each other to death.
Just a thought.
Similar threads
